Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Who Lifted that Stone?

What I don't understand is that his sidebar also includes this (way down, it has to be said, on the bottom right):and, as well as supporting the murder of Iraqi's who assist the Coalition Forces and any Coalition Troops themselves:

If these traitors now lose their lives as a result, then this is the consequence of their participation in this wicked, deceitful and catastrophic war, which has seen over a million Iraqis killed. The same goes for coalition troops.

he also calls for the return of the death penalty. Like it or loath it (and, once again, I am not suggesting that you should hold any particular point of view), both Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (amended by "Protocol No. 6 concerning the abolition of the death penalty" and as implemented in the UK HRA 98) are pretty explicit concerning the right to life being a fundamental human right.

Now, I happen to think that my support for human rights (and the international Law of Armed Conflict) means that I fundamentally oppose Gitmo, so I cannot suggest we send this turkey there. Any logically and morally consistent suggestions?

10 comments:

So you feel that as I have no problem in leaving for dead the Iraqi traitors that have assisted in the deaths of over a million of their countrymen, that I may be showing a tad of inconsistency seeing that I have a 'Human Rights' logo in the sidebar.

These Iraqi translators have already breached articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 23, of the Human Rights Act by assisting coalition forces who have tortured, slaughtered, disrupted and unlawfully detained the people of Iraq. Therefore it is highly inconsistent for you to make even the slightest reference to the Human Rights Act when discussing this issue.

I note you write that e-petitions are "still a waste of time", while at the same time assist an e-petition campaign.

Let's be honest about it shall we. Shall say, instead, that you have explicitly encouraged the terrorist murder of civilians (in contravention of Sections 1 and 3 of the Terrorism Act 2006, for a start) ...

the Iraqi traitors

Against the elected government of that country? Or is it the worldwide ummah that you are so concerned about? What about those translators who are not Muslims?

that have assisted in the deaths of over a million of their countrymen

And where did you get that number from, hmm? The IraqBodyCount anti-war site gives an absolute minimum of 70,000 and the Lancet "random guess" was only 200,000. One civilian (as opposed to terrorist) death is too many but, ohh, who killed over 250 people on Tuesday? I'll hazard a guess that it wasn't translators or even the evil forces of the Coalition armies. I'll guess it was the jihadi scumbag terrorists you are so fond of.

that I may be showing a tad of inconsistency seeing that I have a 'Human Rights' logo in the sidebar.

Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that every breach of Human Rights in Iraq can be laid squarely at the feet of the translators (which is, of course, utter Goebbel-esque nonsense - but then jihadis seem rather to like old Joseph's tactics regarding the Jews and others). Evidence please for any breaches of Articles 4, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 14 by the Coalition forces.

I'll also note that, under Article 5.2, the translators are required and that there are no Articles 13, 20 or 23 in the UK HRA. There are Sections 13 & 20 (but not 23) but these make no sense in this context.

Assuming for the sake of it (which is clearly a rather dangerous assumption) that you are just incompetent rather than a complete blithering idiot, can I please see evidence for breaches of Articles 13, 20 & 23 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (as amended by Protocol No. 11). Especially as Article 20 deals with the number of judges at the ECHR and 23 deals with their terms of office - something completely irrelevant to what is going on in Iraq.

Therefore it is highly inconsistent for you to make even the slightest reference to the Human Rights Act when discussing this issue.

Nope. Even if a person is guilty of a Human Rights offence, it does not remove their rights under the Act. That is rather the point of it.

I note you write that e-petitions are "still a waste of time", while at the same time assist an e-petition campaign.

I would also note that Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 16, 18, 19, 21 & 26 are completely, or to some degree (i.e. religion, sex or sexual orientation) incompatible with Sharia law as implemented in Saudi & Iran, for example.

You're still being very inconsistency. I did not write “Human Rights Act 1998″, you did. Since Ive linked to it (as you did), you should be aware I've referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Further more, is it not a product, such as a statute, decree, or enactment, resulting from a decision by a legislative or judicial body, which makes it an act? Anyway, if i isn't, now you know what I am referring to. Again you show your inconsistency, as although you quickly make reference to shariah law you are unable to comprehend that the USA illegal invasion and subsequent torture, slaughter, bombing, disruption and unlawful detention of the people of Iraq constitutes breach of the above articles, and those assisting in this are just as guilty (ie Iraqi translators). I suggest you google of watch the news if you're unaware of human rights concern regarding some of the effects of military action in Iraq.

With reference to your first response, lets lave aside the hypothetical arguments. The fact is that many civilians in Iraq are dead, estimated as over a million people. 'Apparently, Iraq Body Count (IBC) does not record numbers of 'Iraqi civilians [who] have died as a result of the military intervention'. That would include figures for deaths from disease, malnutrition, infant mortality, accidents due to collapse of infrastructure, etc. IBC only records Iraqi civilians who have died as a result of violence, and of these only deaths that have been reported by mostly Western media that are mostly unable to function in Iraq' and therefore as in the sites ive referred you too, the the Lancet studies appear more accurate, but you've obviously failed to understand the figures. The Lancet, estimated over 600,000 Iraqis killed as of July 2006 and since Iraqis have continued to be killed, we already know the daily rates of the Iraq Body Count.

So yes, the translators have assisted the military in this action against their own countrymen and should be considered traitors (as they have). This would be the same as if jews assisted the Nazis in rounding up and gassing their neighbors, but I see you don't agree with this either!

Nevertheless, I don't expect a decent answer from you as Ive already highlighted your inconsistency. Still supporting the e-petition I see, although you think its a waste of time.

Ive just seen the comment you left on my blog. SO just to answer your direct question in case you missed it;

Has the effect of military action on the people of Iraq not caused many Iraqis (particularly the dead million and displaced thousands) to have difficulty in attaining the rights set out, affecting their life, liberty and security by the threat and acts of war, attack, torture and illegal detention, taken at force from their homes, movement prevented, some which have been illegally held in servitude and subjected to torture, held without trial in detention centres where their rights were not recognised, affecting livelihoods, sometimes not even as a person due to the degradation forced upon them (we saw the photos on cnn). NOw as a result of the bombing, clustering, illegal detentions, etc, many families and children are left to starve, without homes, money, etc? I am not making this up, these are documented facts so please do not act as if they are not. We can discuss these things as much as it is desired, however, lets not forget the plight of the Iraqis. My position is that I do not support the war or any that assist in it.

I'll comment here, even though his spelling no is better the second time around (c.f. here):

You’re still being very inconsistency. I did not write “Human Rights Act 1998″, you did.

Yes, you wrote "Human Rights Act" and linked to the UN Declaration - I was trying to find out which of the 3 documents you were referring to, one of which is HRA98, not the least because the Article numbers differ and because you were referring to specific Articles (i.e. no mention of breach of Articles 8, 15-19 etc).

Since Ive linked to it (as you did), you should be aware I’ve refererd to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Thank you. We can now proceed on that basis.

Further more, is it not a product, such as a statute, decree, or enactment, resulting from a decision by a legislative or judicial body, which makes it an act?

Nope. Sorry. It is a declaration from the United Nations.

Anyway, if i isn’t, now you know what I am referring to. Again you show your inconsistency, as although you quickly make reference to shariah law you are unable to comprehend that the USA illegal invasion and subsequent torture, slaughter, bombing, disruption and unlawful detention of the people of Iraq constitutes breach of the above articles

I fully comprehend that some coalition military action may constitute a breach of Articles 3, 5, 9 and, as far as the whole ugly Guantanamo Bay thing goes, Article 10 (although in that case the breach of the International Law of Armed Conflict is far more egregious). You will note that I didn't ask you for evidence of those, as I pointed out.

and those assisting in this are just as guilty (ie Iraqi translators).

A very dubious and unsupported assertion.

I suggest you google of watch the news if you’re unaware of human rights concern regarding some of the effects of military action in Iraq.

I agree entirely that there are human rights concerns regarding the effects of military action in Iraq. That wasn't the point you were making. You said:

The reality is that these Iraqis betrayed their countrymen in order to assist coalition troops in slaughtering their fellow Iraqis during this illegal war. If these traitors now lose their lives as a result, then this is the consequence of their participation in this ‘wicked, deceitful and catastrophic war’

Back to the recent comments:

The fact is that many civilians in Iraq are dead, estimated as over a million people.

Estimated by one site, that I can see, which has done no research and based their initial number on the disputed John Hopkins figures published in the Lancet.

of these only deaths that have been reported by mostly Western media that are mostly unable to function in Iraq

Possibly because they risk getting kidnapped by jihadi terrorist scumbags?

So yes, the translators have assisted the military in this action against their own countrymen and should be considered traitors (as they have). This would be the same as if jews assisted the Nazis in rounding up and gassing their neighbors, but I see you don't agree with this either!

Agree with what? Jews assisting Nazis? Or "treason" being an act against the lawful government of your country, as opposed to your religion? Would a German Jew who assisted in rounding up other Jews have been committing treason? A French fascist, however diligent a disciple of St Jerome, probably would (arguments about the legitimacy of the Vichy regime not withstanding - let's assume it took place in occupied Paris). An unlawful act against a co-religionist does not make treason, nor is treason alway immoral (or even, unjust.)

Has the effect of military action on the people of Iraq not caused many Iraqis (particularly the dead million and displaced thousands) to have difficulty in attaining the rights set out

As far as I can see that would be Articles 3, 5, 9 & 10. Once again, I would like to see evidence for your claimed breaches of Articles 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20 & 23 by Coalition forces?

We can discuss these things as much as it is desired, however, lets not forget the plight of the Iraqis.

I don't actually think this counts as a discussion and I am not forgetting the plight of the ordinary Iraqis, who are being murdered by sectarian terrorists (as in the bombings near Mosul on Tuesday), are having the infrastructure improvements destroyed, by sectarian terrorists, to blame things on coalition reconstruction efforts.

My position is that I do not support the war or any that assist in it.

I think that is rather obvious.

I notice that you still haven't given any answers to my requests for evidence (apart from a vague instruction to use Google or watch the news) nor, as you seem to hold the UN Declaration is such esteem, commented on its compatibility with Sharia law.

S-E

PS: For regular readers, I am beginning to feel like I am turning in to Terry - maybe I should go the whole hog (although that colloquialism has probably just made this discussion haram) and only approve articles once a working day?

Again, I did not write “Human Rights Act 1998", you did. And I did note is it not a product, such as a statute, decree, or enactment, resulting from a decision by a legislative or judicial body, which makes it an act? Nevertheless, you were aware of the linked site. Additionally I find you have much difficulty in answering questions, I suspect to evade further inconsistency on your part as further shown by that you now acknowledge some articles of the declaration may have been breached. Therefore, since Ive enabled you to come this far, please try a further step and stop blaming Iraqis civilians for the violence of coalition forces.

Fido, the bombings were horrific and probably wouldn't have occurred if Bush didn't invade Iraq in the first place so lets not pretend that the "West" staying in Iraq will enable their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be met.

And I did note is it not a product, such as a statute, decree, or enactment, resulting from a decision by a legislative or judicial body, which makes it an act?

Two interesting points. You did not "note is it not a product such as", you wrote "Further more, is it not a product, such as a ...". The first is a negative statement, the second a leading question, framed in the negative sense, expecting the answer to be "it is a product such as."

You are now using your inability to form correct English syntax to try to weasel out from the undeniable fact that when you referred to the "Human Rights Act", you meant a declaration that was not "a statute, decree, or enactment, resulting from a decision by a legislative or judicial body, which makes it an act".

Further more, you noting something does not make you correct. Therefore, complaining that when you use the term "Human Rights Act" as per your comment 10:51pm, people don't automagically realise that you are referring to the UN Declaration is somewhat strange behaviour.

Nevertheless, you were aware of the linked site.

Errm, www.un.org? Yes. The United Nations has a web-site. Oh, sorry, you mean the linked web page? I was also, and I suspect that was what you meant but when arguing with idiots you have to be careful about your assumptions, aware of the UN Declaration and of the fact that it is posted online. I believe you might find that a certain Eleanor Roosevelt had something to do with it.

Additionally I find you have much difficulty in answering questions, I suspect to evade further inconsistency on your part

I answered the ones about your Human Rights Logo; your misunderstanding of the legislative power of the UN; your abysmal misunderstanding of the definition of treason; I commented on your note, not your question, about e-petitions and your inability to accept that a breach of some articles of the Declaration doesn't automatically mean all the breaches you have claimed.

I notice that the only one of my questions you have bothered to address was the purely technical one of which document you were incorrectly referring to as "the Human Rights Act". So we have evidence for breaches, compatibility with sharia law, compatibility of campaigning for "human rights" whilst demanding a return to the death penalty, what body you consider the translators to be traitors against, who killed the Yazdi villagers, whether Western journalists may be deterred from operating freely in Iraq because of the activities of terrorist groups, etc. I could go on but you are beginning to bore me.

as further shown by that you now acknowledge some articles of the declaration may have been breached.

Indeed. According to UK and US courts, civil and military, certain crimes have been committed and people have been sentenced. As the UN Declaration does not form part of the body of law in either the UK or the US, charges were brought under actual legislation. You did not ask me to acknowledge this until your 9:28 comment while, if you bothered to read it, it is implicit in my statement in my 7:35 comment "that every breach of Human Rights in Iraq can be"

Therefore, since Ive enabled you to come this far, please try a further step and stop blaming Iraqis civilians for the violence of coalition forces.

I've come from where to where, exactly? And you think you helped?

And, at what point have I blamed anybody for the "violence of coalition forces"? I have blamed jihadi terrorist scumbags for some of the violence in Iraq (and I would be happy for you to assume that I blame them for most of it) and am happy to note that many of them are foreign jihadis rather than Iraqi nationals ...

Fido, your turn ...

S-E

The problem with arguing with idiots is that they drag you down to their level and beat you through sheer experience.

Protect Your Bits

Nothing You Wanted to Know

A classical liberal & modern libertarian, economically laissez faire, and a governmental minimalist. Somewhat surprised to find this puts me way to the right of Chingis Khan.
Really, really pissed off at the endemic stupidity of the British governing cliques. Sometimes lets his potty mouth get the better of him.